Discussion Of Words Research Articles

Baker’s Translation Strategy on God and Self-Related Words and Expressions in The Alchemy of Happiness

Certain expressions related to something intangible may be difficult to translate and need special translation strategy. The study’s objective is to classify the strategies conducted by translators to translate SL to TL of God and Self-related words and Expressions from English into Indonesian. This research can be a reference for future research on the topic of translation, especially in the discussion of words or above words and expressions. Furthermore, it is insightful research for readers of this research as well as readers of the book to gain some knowledge in translation terms. This qualitative study compares Indonesian and English versions of the book The Alchemy of Happiness. The Indonesian version is translated by Haidar Bagir and the English is the work of Claud field. The results revealed that there were 209 data found. The translation strategies used come from Baker (1992). However, only 3 out of 4 were found in the data. The most strategy used were translation using similar meaning and form with 102 data (48,80%) and the least was translation by paraphrasing with only 27 data (12,92%). The findings show that the translation using similar meaning and form is a functional strategy to translate the God and self-related words and expressions. Moreover, this study has pedagogical implications for translators in general, translators of God-related texts, as well as students and teachers of translation.

American and British English: Divided by a Common Language? by Paul Baker, and: The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship Between American and British English by Lynne Murphy

Reviewed by: American and British English: Divided by a Common Language? by Paul Baker, and: The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship Between American and British English by Lynne Murphy Orin Hargraves (bio) American and British English: Divided by a Common Language?, by Paul Baker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. xiii + 264. $24.99 (paperback). ISBN: 978-1-107-46088-1. The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship Between American and British English, by Lynne Murphy. New York: Penguin Books, 2018. Pp. 360. $17.00 (paperback). ISBN: 978-0-1431-3110-6 (also published in the U.K. by Oneworld Publications). The differences between the varieties of English spoken in the United States and the United Kingdom have been remarked on since colonial times. In public discourse, it’s a regular trope of journalists and columnists to remark on differences, often as a pretext for some other agenda. At the scholarly level, articles, papers, and books have been written to address diverse aspects of these dialectal differences and what they mean or portend. Many past and current DSNA members are among the contributors to this genre: John Algeo, Richard Bailey, Carol-June Cassidy, Edward Finegan, Paul Heacock, and myself, to name a few. Now two new books have appeared in this genre, and they are as different as chalk and cheese, to use a decidedly British expression. STILL DIFFERENT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS Paul Baker, a professor at Lancaster University in England, has written American and British English: Divided by a Common Language? It is a much more technically oriented book than the title might suggest; those who geek out on corpus statistics and the arcane ways in which they can be wrung from data will find much to examine in his book. Baker sets out to determine “to what extent are British and American English different, in what ways, and how have these differences altered over the last 100 years” (3). His approach to these questions is constrained by the data he examines, which is limited to the Brown family of corpora—a set of eight corpora comprising published material in separate collections of British and American English drawn from writing at different time periods. Baker’s claim is that comparisons between them have “high validity” (6) because they were all built using the same sampling frame. The corpora offer a view into the state of the dialects in 1931, 1961, 1991, and 2006. [End Page 115] To give a flavor of the highly technical analysis that Baker undertakes, you will be a third of the way through the book before there is much discussion of words and what they mean in one dialect or the other. Up to that point, his discussion centers on a more atomic view of the dialects’ components: spelling differences, morphemes, affixes, letter sequences. The results are laid out in tables, charts, and graphs, with accompanying interpretive discussion. Baker’s sophisticated analysis of the corpus data is far beyond what a casual corpus user might discover. It is based on algorithmic queries of the corpora that make a simple wildcard search feel like child’s play. You will learn, for example, that in the Brown corpora, mean sentence length in British English began a slow increase in 1961 that did not begin to taper off until 1991, but even in 2006 it remained significantly longer than sentence length in American English. Americans, for their part, come out on top of the “standardised type token ratios” (22; a measure of lexical diversity), an achievement in which the data suggests that they surpassed the British in about 1980. For the most part, Baker is examining corpus language through a more abstract lens than the one that lexicographers use. He generates statistics about language based on changing frequencies of semantic categories, syntactic functions, and parts of speech, as indicated in the corpora by computer-driven tagging schemes. The findings in Baker’s book will be of interest mainly to corpus linguists, who are also the readers most likely to find fault with them. His analysis of the Brown corpora are novel and ingenious, and his interpretations of his results often show great imagination. But are they...

The Role of Staff Development in School-Based Management

Today’s frontier is knowledge. Brain has taken precedence over brawn; our physical struggle forexistence has been replaced by intellectual struggle, and knowledge of words has become the mostvaluable tool for this struggle. Words are the very cornerstone of any language. With a good vocabulary,which indicates scope of knowledge, we can grasp the thoughts of others and be able to communicateour own thoughts to them. As Stahl (1999) argued, discussion of words is discussion of knowledge ofthe world, and knowledge of the world is knowledge of who we are and where we stand in the world.Also, the importance of words in foreign and second language learning is beyond question. Vocabularyknowledge is one of the language skills crucial for fluent language use (Nation, 1993). Vocabulary sizeis an indicator of how well the second language (L2) learners can perform academic language skillssuch as, reading, listening, and writing (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton and Johnston, 2008; Treiman andCasar, 1996). Numerous studies have documented the strong and reciprocal relationship betweenvocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension (Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1995; Beck,McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Graves, 2000; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1987;) as well as general reading ability(Stanovich, Cunningham, & West, 1998). Likewise, Saville-Troike, (1984) concluded that vocabularyknowledge is the single best predictor of students’ academic achievement across subject matterdomains. Also, there is a strong agreement among researchers that promoting vocabulary growth is animportant and often neglected component of a comprehensive reading program (Baumann &Kame’enui, 2004; National Reading Panel, 2000; Vaezi & Fallah, 2010).

Remarks on Swedenborgian Elements in the Literary Production of Johan Ludvig Runeberg

This article sets out to trace possible influences of Emanuel Swedenborg, the Swedish theosophist and spirit-seer, in the production of the Finnish national poet Johan Ludvig Runeberg. We argue that the influence of Swedenborgianism on nineteenth-century culture in Finland was greater than has generally been suggested by literary scholars. The first part of the article provides a historical background of Swedenborgianism in the country. The latter part indicates a larger epistemic and religious accord between Swedenborg and Runeberg, to be accounted for in greater detail in terms of influence. Both authors subscribed to an emblematic worldview within the Classical discourse of nature as a book, ultimately supported by a framework of logocentrism and theism. Runeberg’s discussion of words and things,and his use of the metaphor of light, places him within a mainstream nineteenth-century spirituality, which may be juxtaposed, in addition to general Romantic views, also with Swedenborgian sources.

Elegiac inscription: a discussion of words in the work of Ian Hamilton Finlay and Richard Long

Elegiac inscription: a discussion of words in the work of Ian Hamilton Finlay and Richard Long

On Japanese Things and Words: An Answer to Heidegger's Question

On Japanese Things and Words:An Answer to Heidegger's Question Michael F. Marra It has been over thirty years since my high school teacher of philosophy, Professor Dino Dezzani, recommended a book from which to begin my study of philosophy: Martin Heidegger's (1889-1976) Unterwegs zur Sprache (On the way to language [1959]). Evidently he was aware of my interest in literature and thought that Heidegger's discussion of words, things, and poetic language would give some sort of direction to my naïve and youthful questions of what literature is about and what I should hope to find in it. The impact that Heidegger's book had on this young student was much greater than my professor could ever have imagined. I would hardly have committed myself to the study of Japan were it not for my reading of "A Dialogue on Language between a Japanese and an Inquirer," which appears in On the Way to Language. The dialogue is a fictional reconstruction of an actual meeting that Heidegger had with Tezuka Tomio (1903-1983), a Japanese scholar of German literature who visited the German philosopher in Freiburg at the end of March 1954.1 In the dialogue the Inquirer (Heidegger) formulates a central question that, in my opinion, should be of fundamental interest to anyone seriously concerned with the study of Japan. The question is deceptively simple, at least compared with the difficulty of coming up with the answer-an answer that, as a matter of fact, the reader will not find fully formulated in the dialogue. The question is: "What is the Japanese word for 'language' "? The Japanese visitor (Tezuka in Heidegger's recollection) appears to have been caught off guard, as we can see from Heidegger's parenthetical remark: "after further hesitation." Had Heidegger posed the same question to a Frenchman or an Italian, the answer would have been immediate: "langue" or "lingua." The challenge for Tezuka was definitely higher since he had a variety of words from which to choose. He could have used, for example, the expression gengo, a combination of two Chinese characters indicating "the speech of words." Instead, he used an ancient Japanese word derived from the native Yamato vocabulary: kotoba, which literally means "the foliage of speech."2 There should be little doubt that Tezuka's choice was prompted by his desire to please Heidegger by playing the philosopher's own game-something that Tezuka totally succeeded in doing, as Heidegger's dialogue attests. Tezuka introduced a term that lent itself to etymological play-an enterprise very close to the heart of Heidegger, and one that was also very popular among Japanese thinkers.3 In fact, the expression kotoba incorporates the word koto, which means both "thing" and [End Page 555] "word" and which is found in the basic concepts of Japanese ontology: Mikoto (God, or "the honorable thing"), makoto (truth, or "the true word"), kotodama (soul, or "the spirit of words"), and kotowari(reason, or "the splitting of things"). The association of "words" and "things" in the Japanese word for "language" must have been of particular interest to Heidegger, who, four years before his meeting with Tezuka, had written "Das Ding" (The thing), a major lecture on the notion of things interpreted in light of the fourfold earth, sky, divinities, and mortals. In the dialogue Heidegger refers to this essay, in which "things" are presented in their objectified presence-the disparaged things that modernity and technology have dispossessed of their Being (Sein). Heidegger points out that never has the distance between things and Sein been as great as in modernity, when all distances in space and time have shrunk.4 Given the unflattering position that Heidegger had taken on the notion of "things," Tezuka was forced to come to the rescue of the Japanese word kotoba by endowing koto with the meaning of two Heideggerian keywords: "event" (kotogara) and "affair" (Sache). The thingly component of kotoba was not simply an objectifiable presence that can be counted, analyzed, and disposed of, but rather a poietic "act" that has the power to create a reality by transforming the named thing (koto) into a real thing (koto). In "A Dialogue...

Beyond diction: Using burke to empower words—and wordlings

Being bodies that learn language / thereby becoming wordlings-thus begins Kenneth Burke's revised definition of human beings.' Here I will suggest teachers of writing and literacy can use Burke to revise our discussion of words and thereby better empower the wordlings we teach. Traditionally, what have we taught our students about words? Probably the first place to look for the answer to this question is the site where our assertions about diction have most power: in the margins of their papers. What my students report about their revision processes matches what composition researchers report. Their primary concern (re: diction) is changing words to avoid such comments as WW, Abst, Amb, especially WW. That is the most potent lesson they have learned from their previous teachers about diction. I. A. Richards was right when he asserted that the best and most effective way to teach writing is to help students understand how words work in (8). The New Rhetoric reframes what we know about words work. It directs attention to the crucial importance of word-ing in both the psychological process of invention and the social process of discourse community.2 It can help us teach writing humanely, critically, and effectively both in the humanities and across the curriculum/'in the disciplines. Most composition textbooks use Burke, if at all, only by mentioning his Pentad. But this presentation of the Pentad is a red herring, an obeisance that allows us to deflect the rest of Burke, to put him under erasure.3 More important than any particular like the Pentad is what Burke can help us understand about language in general, rhetorical processes in particular. We should take into our classrooms Burke's insights into words work, into abstractions move minds, into contexts (especially of that rhetorically most important context called, perhaps misleadingly, audience [cf. Park]), into contradiction and into process-in short, into writing as a psycholinguistic, sociocultural process. In writing classes our discussion of words is all too often based in reductively narrow, dichotomized conceptions of style and diction. We will do well to let Burke remind us words are more important than that, to remind us wording can constitute knowledge and power. We should demonstrate to our students-while